Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-05-02

TESTING THE SUNDAY LAW.
Petition for a Writ Of Habeas Corpus
In the Case Of Geo. w. Cochran.
Messrs Charles S. Moore and Walter D. Davidge,
the Police Court OF violating the Sabbath law, by
selling cigars and tobacco at the news and cigar
stand In Wizards Hotel, have prepared petition
Ior Wit OF habeas corpus, In order to get the
case De1ore the Court In General Term for de-
cision. The petition is as follows:
ITO the Supreme Court Of the District Of Colum-
pll your petitioner respectfully states that:
FIRST. He is a citizen OF the United States and
resident OF the District OF Columbia.
second Inat he Is now and has been for the
wholesale and retail Of cigars and tobacco, and
being SO engaged he is the owner and proprietor
9L %ael news @ ana cigar stand located In Wizards
Ing the entire year for the reception and enter
tainment OF nonresident guests visiting the capt.
tai city and for the reception and of
residents OF the District OF Columbia, and as such
proprietor OF said news and cigar stand, your
peIiIioner having been duly licensed by the au-
CnOrtes OF said District, does to be sold TO
the persons aforesaid newspapers, cigars, and to-
bacco.
Third. Your petitioner further shows that on
Ine l9tn day OF April, A. ID. 1887, that one Robt
Galway, a member OF the police force of this Dis
trlct, caused to be filed an information under
oath In the Police Court OF the District OF Colum-
Dia charging that your petitioner on the 18th day
OF APRIL A. ID. 1887, being the proprietor OF said
and cigar stand did sell cigars the said 18th
DAY or April A. ID. 1887, the said day being sun
DAY. A copy OF said information is filed herewith.
Fourth. That your petitioner was notified to be
anu appear In the said Police Court, and your
t1ai In the said Police Court on the Goth day OF
April, A. d. 1887; whereupOn your petitioner was
arraigned upon said information, SO as aforesaid
filed as aforesaid and for plea to said Information
your petlt1Oner said he was mot guilty." where
upon the court after hearing testimony adjudged
penalty fine OF $50 and in default OF the payment
OF said ne to be committed to the OF the
Of ot tor the e OF hs day
petltlOner further shows that he did not pay said
nne OF $50; whereupOn commitment was by the
said Police Court directed to the intendant or the
washington Asylum or keeper OF said work house,
directing him to hold in custody your petitioner
for the said term OF 80 days.
Fifth. Your petitioner further shows that he was
prosecuted tried, convicted and sentenced for the
violation OF certain alleged ordinance alleged
De Pc enforced In the District of columbia, on the
18th day OF April, 1887. and is now restrained OF
his liberty, and is in the custody and keeping of
the said tntendant OF the Washington Asylum and
keeper OF the said workhouse; all OF Which is con-
trary and in violation Of his rights as citizen and
contrary to the law OF the land. For that the
board OF aldermen and common council had not
the authority 10 pass any such alleged ordinance
under and by virtue OF the charter granted TO the
Corporation OF the District OF Columbia by the
United States, and that said alleged ordinance is
not part of the law OF the District OF Columbia,
nor was or Is the same in force in the District OF
Columbia; for that, under and by virtue OF the
COIumbia by the limited States it was nrovided
and among other things declared that ali ordi
nances and acts passed by the hoard of aldermen
and the board OF common council Should be sent to
the mayOr for his annroyaI and when the said
ordinances or acts were 20 apnrOyed bY the mayOr
they Should be OBLIGATORY as such bIt ir the
the mayor should NOT apnroye of any act or ordi
nance sent to him he should return the same
the two boards Should by their adjournment pre-
vent its return in which event the ordnance or
act should not be obligatory as such.
Your petitioner asks that the charter aforesaid
be read to the court
sixth. Your petitioner further shows that the
said alleged ordinance under which he has been
prosecuted, tried, convicted and sentenced is not
law or ordinance OF the District OF Columbia and
Is not IA iOlGe tneren Ior Ine reason lhat E dot9
nv was ever senI To the maXor fo ha @
proval And that the said mayor did not as is re.
Quired by law approve the said alleged ordinance
or act. nor was the same ever signed by the said
mayor. Nor dl0 tne BOARD OF aldermen and BOARD
%ood ,oSs t%a Ga ~ ,ioaI d1a 80 ~ oVen W
same had been disapproved by the mayor. and for
that the said board, on the day OF the passage of
said alieged ordinance, adjourned lot a longer
pellotun fho1 os TIC S.td a1,oyo6 orSinS t i ,h
time pvnich 10 rosroo+,,,r c,hn,+tod ona ,,o,-
A,,"ner AZ dec,ares that he iS "n,awTmilv ~.
stralno, ~, n ,n , ne, ~ ne piay YOU,
hoheas corpus to the intendant of the washington
ASsI"ro or keener Of rhe WorkhOuse rpOuirinO
him to forthwith produce your petitioner in court.
Second. Ihat upon nearing OF TINS petition
your poI,co romrt aanSI vonr mr nettonar
tn9ether ~ with the charter Granted by the United
states to the corporation or the District of Coum
bia and the said alleged ordinance under which
ronir ratftfoner WAS sentenced. the same being